Yes, I'm confident in the links I posted. I posted links to data across the entire city of 8 million+ and you posted a link to a study with a sample size of 713.

> Also, it's not exactly hard to look at a crime heat map of NYC and see how it almost directly maps onto the income level of the residents in a given neighborhood. The only exceptions are places like Midtown that have tons of people in them, but very few actual residents so the crime rates get skewed.

And now you're trying to conduct an experiment on the fly with some hand-wavy methodology and random speculation.

Address the data: why does the group with the highest poverty rate in the city have the lowest crime rate? How does that work if poverty is overwhelmingly the strongest predictor of criminality? Does it perhaps suggest that other factors are at play?

It's clear that the crime here doesn't meet the requirements of the law. We aren't supposed to bend the law because we hate the defendants. That's why there's a saying that tough cases make bad law: we twist the law to fit a certain situation then that ends up with bad consequences down the road.

The torture law requires:

the defendant acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner pursuant to a course of conduct intended to inflict and inflicting torture upon the victim prior to the victim's death. As used in this subparagraph, "torture" means the intentional and depraved infliction of extreme physical pain; "depraved" means the defendant relished the infliction of extreme physical pain upon the victim evidencing debasement or perversion or that the defendant evidenced a sense of pleasure in the infliction of extreme physical pain;

In the context of murder, everything leading up to the death is going to be horrible. The law says that it has to be "especially cruel and wanton manner" and it has to be intended to inflict and actually inflict torture. The other ways to get convicted of first degree murder are pretty extreme and rare:

1. Knowingly and intentionally killing an on-duty cop, firefighter, EMS, corrections officer, etc.;
2. Killing a witness to silence them;
3. Killing a judge out of vengeance;
4. being a serial killer;
5. Killing anyone while you're already in prison serving a life term;
6. murder for hire;
7. a killing while conducting a rape, robbery, or burglary.

Thanks!

Attorney practicing criminal law: Non-bail eligible offenses, meaning the prosecutor can't ask for bail and the judge can't legally set bail for the following offenses, which is a non-exhaustive list:

Public Lewdness

Stalking

Criminal contempt 2nd degree (violating an order of protection)

Assault 3rd degree

Child endangerment

DWI non felony (no prior DWI Convictions)

Forcible Touching

Petit Larcenies

Unlawful imprisonment

Menacing 2nd degree

CPW 4th degree

Do 32nd st Koreatown! I keep saying that's the perfect candidate for a walking street once you get rid of the sheds. Its literally right next to the proposed Broadway and Herald Square even.

>Study shows those released under NY's bail reform laws are less likely to get rearrested

I'm sure it's true, but it's irrelevant when you consider the Pareto rule. 20% of the criminals commit 80% of the crimes.

>OCA admits to being unable to track recidivists in terms of rearrest. In their data set, if a defendant is rearrested 1x it counts as 1 arrest. BUT, importantly, if a defendant is rearrested 100x, it still only counts as 1 arrest. It is impossible for this dataset to paint an actual picture of recidivists who commit multiple crimes as it only counts them as 1 rearrest.

That's the *public* OCA dataset. OCA does have data on *all* re-arrests. But yes, their study doesn't address whether the *number* of re-arrests per person increased; nevertheless, it shows that a lot of critics have completely overblown the negative impacts of bail reform.

>Further, this report focuses only on 1 particular period - that is pre trial to disposition.

Not sure what you mean by that but they didn't only look at pretrial re-arrest, they looked at 2-year re-arrest rates, i.e, beyond the pretrial period in almost all cases.

​

>In my experience, the speedy trial discovery reforms lead to at least 60% of cases being thrown out due to failure to "certify" that all discovery "relating to the case" has been turned over to the defense. The rate of rearrest for those individuals who have had their cases tossed pre disposition because of speedy trial dismissals has not been accounted.

I assume by "thrown out" you mean dismissed? If so, then those cases are included in the results. All prosecuted cases are included, whether they were dismissed or not.

I’m not here for a big debate, just pointing out the verifiably false thing that the OP said.

In a national study, being arrested and immediately let out and being arrested and kept in jail for less than six months were basically equal in terms of employment rates because it wasn't employed people who were getting arrested in the first place. There are no NYC stats about the percentage of people arrested who lost their jobs before bail reform was implemented.

The most unsafe thing about that station is the copious amounts of construction they're doing and one set of stairs that is open on the southbound side.

Yes, it contributes. How about we list the other factors that contribute? The quality of home life is a vastly stronger predictor of someone growing up to commit crime than poverty. Growing up in a divorced/unmarried household is also a contributing factor. Witnessing adults using violence as a child is an incredibly strong predictor. These are major factors that seem to just get swept under the rug and are strongly tied to culture.

It's the NYTimes, were you expecting anything closely related to being aware?

They're not lumped together though. For bail ineligible people (i.e., people where judges could no longer set bail due to bail reform), overall re-arrest rates (regardless of charge) and felony re-arrest rates went down, while violent felony re-arrest rates and firearm re-arrest rates didn't change (see p.13 of the report).

The group in NYC with the highest poverty rate has the lowest crime rate.

Poverty absolutely exacerbates crime, but to claim that it is the overwhelming cause of crime in NYC is not supported by the evidence at all. Actual statistics would suggest a very different story.

Are you sure about that?

Also, it's not exactly hard to look at a crime heat map of NYC and see how it almost directly maps onto the income level of the residents in a given neighborhood. The only exceptions are places like Midtown that have tons of people in them, but very few actual residents so the crime rates get skewed.

Also, there's a reason why I specifically said economic insecurity rather than poverty. Those two things aren't precisely the same thing.

even if he is/was privileged...thats not what a nepo baby is

Political Donors need jobs too.

>Non-white collar crime is almost directly correlated to economic insecurity.

The group in NYC with the highest poverty rate has the lowest crime rate. Poverty has a correlation with crime, but it isn't anywhere close to the strength you are implying.

There are far larger and more important factors at play here. Your attempts to sweep them under the rug will only make matters worse.

EDIT: Downvote away folks, your view of the world is a joke. A victim mentality will fuck you far harder than your fellow man ever could. Good luck to those of you that are hoping playing the victim will somehow magically unfuck your life.

Real answer, I don't think its worth us talking about this as I don't think you're interesting in actually having a discussion, and it's not worth my time. If you are actually curious there's plenty of studies on the subject that you can read.

Yeah this guy gets it, drive-bys are a cultural institution

Very anecdotally, I saw a man stab his wife in the street in broad daylight in Midtown East. I and others chased him until the police arrived and arrested him. He was released the same day and arrested for petty theft the day afterwards. Unsure if he was released again at that point, but his trial was like 2.5 years later. He was on his 3rd strike (shocker) so ended up pleaing to about 4-5 years.

[deleted]

Real question though, did that 9 year old shot outside the bodega in the Bronx, was that because the gunman was so damn poor he’s just tryna put food on his table?

Or was that other little girl who got shot in Brownsville, that was done so the shooter can afford toiletries for his family right

Attorney practicing criminal law and familiar with NY's OCA's "Office of Court Administration" data reporting.

This report acknowledges pulling all of their data from NY's OCA. My critique is as follows:

OCA admits to being unable to track recidivists in terms of rearrest. In their data set, if a defendant is rearrested 1x it counts as 1 arrest. BUT, importantly, if a defendant is rearrested 100x, it still only counts as 1 arrest. It is impossible for this dataset to paint an actual picture of recidivists who commit multiple crimes as it only counts them as 1 rearrest.

Overall, it paints an incomplete and misleading picture of bail reform, which cannot be divorced from the incomplete data provided by OCA.

Shhheeeeeeiiiiiiiiitt